If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You don't find it curious that God declares His own name to be a form of the Law of Identity?

Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?

Sure! Irrational morons reproduce like rabbits on this website alone!

But that doesn't mean that what they say is true or that it corresponds to anything that is real (same thing).

I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.

Why would I deny it? It's a metaphor of sorts I suppose but it seems an intuitively accurate one. Why would this have jumped out at you?

What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).

You are conflating data with phonomena.
Data is collected information about phenomena. Phenomena exist without observation but data is that which you have after the phenomena have been observed and the information recorded. Light is scattered in a particular way by our atmosphere whether we are here to see it or not but it isn't "blue" until we see it and decide to call it that. See the difference?

I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.

Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it. "Blue" is merely an assigned term. We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue". The knowledge exists without any reasoning, just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

Of course they do! Don't you think that Satan would be better off if he stopped fighting God? Lucifer was not created evil. He chose to destroy himself and will go on destroying not only his own life but as many other lives as he can. God is life. To rebel against God is to rebel against life. To rebel against life is both irrational and immoral, by definition.

This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know. Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.

How so? The tree either fell or it didn't. This is reality. If we make a statement about whether the tree fell that is consistent with reality then the statement is true. If we make a statement that is not consistent with reality then it is false. Reality is the final arbiter of any truth claim.

My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations. It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.

Wow did you say a big mouth full here! I don't disagree with any of it. I have the feeling that you don't see all of what you just said but whether you do or not, you're on the right track. Stay on it.

God loves, he is loved and He is Love. We act Godly by loving God, ourselves and others. Likewise, He is both kind and Kindness, He is both just and Justice, He is merciful and Mercy, God is both wise and Wisdom and God is both rational and Reason.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.

Here's the key thing...

These are all different ways to say the same thing. It's just a matter of application and context. To say God is Love is to say that God is Reason.

I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.

Nope! I am NOT interpreting anything. The word Logos has a very clear meaning. The Calvinist translators be damned.
Why should I be more comfortable with the entirely meaningless English phrase "The Word became flesh..." as opposed to "Logic became flesh..."?

Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?

I already responded to this.
You cannot be rational while fighting Reason!
They fight God because they hate God. It isn't complicated. As I explained before, simply being consistent with a chosen path, doesn't make you rational if that chosen path is fundamentally irrational. Fighting against the God who is Reason and that gave you your existence is fundamentally irrational.

Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.

He is not consistent with reality or his nature. Lucifer was created an Arch Angel capable of standing in the direct presence of God Himself. He was created good and righteous. He chose to act against, not only that nature but against the God who sustains his very existence. God has seen fit to delay Satan's final judgment but that delay will not continue forever and when God's stay of judgment comes to an end, so will Satan and it will Satan's own fault, a result of his own irrational decisions and actions.

Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do. I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.

I explained clearly what I meant. Satan was not created evil and made a choice to rebel against his righteous nature, the rest is history.

Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?

I didn't suggest that the law of identity predated God. How could anything predate God? The law of identity, or a form of it anyway, is what God chose to identify Himself with. He was either accurate or He wasn't, right?

As for using Himself to describe Himself, I think that's sort of a confusing way to put it but it isn't wrong. What else could He accurately use?

I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.

This objection would only apply to what I said if their thought was about their thought, in which case it would no longer be irrational. In other words, you're not really disagreeing with me, rather you've changed the subject.

The irrational does not exist, Derf.

There is no such thing as a sphere with sharp edges. You cannot be in a place that does not exist. Etc.

Such things can happen in fiction or fantasy but the fact that it isn't real is why they call it fiction or fantasy.

What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).

I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.

He'd have to have data about a specific thing to reason about that specific thing, yes. SO WHAT?

I am baffled by this objection. I do not understand your point at all.

Are you suggesting that unintelligible data (i.e. data that you cannot understand at all) can be reasoned about? Are you suggesting that data can be collected mindlessly (i.e. without reason)?

How can the sentence, "The sky is blue." be meaningful to anyone unless they know what you're referring to when you use the words "sky" and "blue"? Those words have to be connected to concepts to carry any meaning. In addition to that, you'd have to understand, at least to some degree, something about language and sentence structure how that works. In short, you cannot think at all without reason! It doesn't have to be formal logic that is done in some consciously syllogistic manner. In fact, most reason happens intuitively, which is why we are so prone to errors but the point is that it does happen. And to whatever degree one's thought process conforms itself to reality, the thinking is rationally sound and true and to the extent that it does not, it is irrational and false, by definition.

Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it.

No, Derf, it isn't. Blue is a concept. Nothing was blue before that concept existed. You can get away with saying such things in common parlance because it is a valid statement in that there isn't anything about the light that has changed just because we decided to give it a name but that is a different topic! You're conflating two different issues. You are effectively trying to say that the concept of blue existed before anyone thought of it. That is a contradiction. Ideas do not exist before they are thought of. And they cannot be thought of without reason.

"Blue" is merely an assigned term.

Precisely! The term blue neither adds nor subtracts from the light itself. "Blueness" exists in your mind and did not exist at all for you until you understood the concept.

We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue".

Exactly! I do not understand how you don't see that you are making my point for me!

The way something looks is a concept in your mind. When you connect that concept with a word, in this case, "blue", then you can connect that word with other things that look similar. When you look at a blue car, you don't think you're looking at the sky, do you? Why not? It's because you understand intuitively that to say, "The sky is blue." is not the same as saying, "Blue is the sky." How do you understand this distinction? REASON! There is no other way.

The knowledge exists without any reasoning

Nope! No knowledge exists apart from reason. Perception can occur without reason, knowledge cannot. A particular wavelength of light hitting the back of your eye is not the same as understanding (i.e. knowing) what you're looking at.

just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

Data cannot be collected, analyzed or understood without reason. Reality (i.e. phenomena) exists without anyone there to observe it. You are conflating data with phenomena.

This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know.

Does Satan live in some alternate reality where the laws of reason don't work and where cause and effect don't work?

If Satan is real, then his actions are subject to the same reality that ours are.

Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.

NO! Certainly not!

Satan is not in the same situation we human beings are in. First of all, Satan was not created in God's image and likeness and thus he is a fundamentally different kind of creature (i.e. created being). Also, unlike us, Satan has been in the direct immediate presence of God the Father and chose to rebel anyway. These things and perhaps many other issues render Satan and other members of the angelic kind, unredeemable. We know from scripture that Satan and his demons are without hope.

This, however, doesn't mean that they live in some alternate reality where if, hypothetically speaking, of course, they were to act wisely, that such action would not have a positive consequence. It could never be enough to save them from their eternal fate, their previous folly has sealed their eternal doom but if a demon were to build a house, it would shelter him from the rain just as it would you. If a demon planted a crop, watering would have the same effect on his crop as it would on any other farmer's crop.

Indeed, Satan uses this fact to his advantage. Otherwise, there would be no point in presenting himself as an angel of light. He uses truth to conceal his lies because the truth still works, even for Satan. Not every thought in Satan's mind is false. (James 2:19)

My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations.

Our reason?

Who said anything about "our reason"?

There is no such thing as "our reason". There is rational and then there is irrational. "We" or "Our" does not come into it. We do not define reason, God does.

Look at your objection here using a different term with which you are comfortable using in reference to God...

"...if God's word depends on our love, then it is on shaky foundations."

Do you think that there is any such thing as "our love" as opposed to actual love? Any distinction you might care to make would only be differentiating false love from real love. Likewise, anything you'd care to label "our reason" would only refer to something that is in opposition to real reason or sound reason. In other words, if "our reason" exists, it can only refer to the irrational! God's word does not depend on the irrational!

It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.

Put another way...

God's word is rational!

That's all you're saying when you say something is true. The word "true" means "consistent with a standard". In this case, the standard is reality itself. That which is consistent with reality is true, by definition. Likewise, that which is consistent with reality is rational, again, by definition. It's nothing at all other than two different ways to say the exact same thing.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.

Well, I'd concede that there is something that is somewhat ineffable about the statement "God is Love" or "God is Mercy" or whatever other similar phrases you'd care to utter. You are saying more than that God acts in a merciful way or that God loves us. There is something about the very nature of God Himself that is what Love is. Just because we cannot fully comprehend that statement doesn't mean it isn't true. There are some things that transcend our current understanding. And so long as such things are not carried beyond a point where they become contradictions we are free to accept them as true simply because it is God who teaches them to us through His word.

I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.

What an outrageously excellent question! If half the people on this website had your mind, I couldn't ever get anything done because I'd be here on TOL 24/7.

There is no contradiction between justice and mercy, at least not when it comes to God. Your objection comes from a misunderstanding of what mercy is. The Calvinists have infected the church from tip to toe with their poisonous doctrine that teaches that God can do anything at all and that the doing of it would be righteousness by virtue of the fact that it was God who did it. This renders the statement that "God is just (i.e. righteous - same thing)." meaningless. Their terms then become infinitely plastic and malleable and can be made to mean anything they need them to mean to maintain a pretense of rational coherence. But it is only that, a pretense. God is just and perfectly so. He is also merciful. If you think there is a contradiction there then you need to make some effort to discover the source of the Calvinism (in actual fact it is Augustinianism but that's a topic for another thread) in your doctrine and purge yourself of it.

So, then how can God be both just and merciful? There is a one-word answer...

Calvary!

If God could simply do anything at all and remain just, there is no need for Christ to have suffered and died. God could have simply declared everyone forgiven and that would have been the end of it. However, without mercy, the motivation for God to bruise His only begotten Son, would not have existed.

Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?

In reality, both say the same thing. The difference is that, in the minds of English speaking people, one has a lot more meaning than the other. In fact, the phrase, "The Word became flesh..." is very nearly meaningless to most who hear it. They have no idea what it means. They understand intuitively that it means that God became flesh but if you asked them why the translators didn't simply translate it as "God became flesh.." they couldn't even begin to explain why or what the use of the different term implies.

Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.

I don't know how else to say this other than what I've already said. You are conflating actions that are consistent with a premise with acting rationally. It isn't the same thing. If my premise is false, then no matter how far down the road I go with that premise, I'm being irrational. If you make a wrong turn, you aren't going magically make it to the destination by stubbornly sticking to the wrong course. Rationality and consistency are not synonyms. You can't be rational without being consistent but you certainly can be consistently irrational.

Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do.

The very idea is blasphemy. Not to mention unbiblical.

I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.

They don't "have to be". Satan has a will. He chooses to be consistently rebellious against God. The fact that he has a will is what makes that choice immoral or evil. There could be no more irrational choice possible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Last edited by JudgeRightly; May 14th, 2019 at 08:14 PM.

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Satin was made an angel; he had free will and wanted to be separate from God, and like God. He is the adversity who has changed his own nature to being the likeness of darkness, not like God who is the light.

Satin was made an angel; he had free will and wanted to be separate from God, and like God. He is the adversity who has changed his own nature to being the likeness of darkness, not like God who is the light.

Hi Ktoyou!
Thanks for the comments. Are you replying to something you read here? I suppose you are saying that the Logos was not a separate person from God, as Trinitarians claim. I'm not too eager to have a trinitarian debate in this thread, unless you can explain how it has some bearing on the thread topic.

What do you think about the idea that preterism, which holds that most end-times-type prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the writing of the New Testament and were often associated with "this generation" actually is complimentary with the open view? @Clete didn't like the idea much.

What do you think about the idea that preterism, which holds that most end-times-type prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the writing of the New Testament and were often associated with "this generation" actually is complimentary with the open view? @Clete didn't like the idea much.

I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon

I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon

Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?

I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.

What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).

I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.

Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it. "Blue" is merely an assigned term. We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue". The knowledge exists without any reasoning, just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know. Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.

My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations. It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.

I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.

Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?

Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.

Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do. I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.

I'm butting in but I read this entire exchange. I'm just getting back here and trying to navigate as best I can. I read and considered Clete's input and find it lacking, again. Of course, people believe what they type and if not, just trolls. I don't think God reasons with Himself or others.

The "colors" thing hit home with me because I thought as a child, that maybe others see different colors than I do. I thought, well I see blue because I was taught that. We see the color and we're told what the color is but do we all really SEE the same color? Maybe I see what is actually green and yet I call it blue because that's what I was taught. Interesting.

I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon

I might be "partial" pret as well.

I agree with your analysis on the out of Egypt passage. And many prophecies are meant to spur the people on to a particular goal--like threats of destruction did with Nineveh, so it doesn't make that much sense to give them to a generation to which they don't apply (with some exceptions, of course.)

My point with the connection to open theism is that if God is sometimes reacting to the actual events, instead of ordaining them from before time, and He visits the sins of the fathers on their sons for 3 or 4 generations, then most prophecies given for the benefit of the people He's giving them to would not benefit from a prediction that is hundreds and thousands of years in the future.

Nor would it make sense for God to make great threats to people none of which live to see the fulfillment. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but the exceptions will usually still involve the person--like the promise of land to Abraham: I expect he will be involved with the land more than just through his descendants--or of a savior to Adam and Eve.

But if open theism is to be considered, it has to be considered from how the people will behave as much or more than how God will behave. If God is predicting a particular action from a person that is not alive, then in open theism, there has to be a reason for it in God's mind--not just a prediction for prediction's sake. The calling out of Cyrus well before he was born comes to mind. That seemed like it was intended to show God's power, not to the people of Isaiah's day, but to those of Cyrus's day. But other prophecies around Isaiah's time (and some from him) were to warn the people of his own day.

The end times scenario intrigues me as an open theist, because if God predicts something that is based on the minds and hearts of the people in the future, then He must make their mind and heart condition come to pass in order for them to fulfill the prophecy. OR He must already know their mind and heart condition at the time of the prophecy. Is it possible for God to know the mind and heart of someone that doesn't exist? "Mind" and "heart" are words that are used for a person's will--what they want/pursue. But if there's no person there, only a gleam in God's eye, then God is responsible for all that they do, if what they do is necessary to accomplish His goals.

And take the beast and false prophet for another example. If these things were dictated 2000 years before they come to pass, where the beast and false prophet are explicitly planned to be thrown into hell, is it possible for them to repent? Is it a vague enough prophecy that any of a number of people will be available at the time, in case one does repent?

I agree with your analysis on the out of Egypt passage. And many prophecies are meant to spur the people on to a particular goal--like threats of destruction did with Nineveh, so it doesn't make that much sense to give them to a generation to which they don't apply (with some exceptions, of course.)

My point with the connection to open theism is that if God is sometimes reacting to the actual events, instead of ordaining them from before time, and He visits the sins of the fathers on their sons for 3 or 4 generations, then most prophecies given for the benefit of the people He's giving them to would not benefit from a prediction that is hundreds and thousands of years in the future.

Nor would it make sense for God to make great threats to people none of which live to see the fulfillment. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but the exceptions will usually still involve the person--like the promise of land to Abraham: I expect he will be involved with the land more than just through his descendants--or of a savior to Adam and Eve.

But if open theism is to be considered, it has to be considered from how the people will behave as much or more than how God will behave. If God is predicting a particular action from a person that is not alive, then in open theism, there has to be a reason for it in God's mind--not just a prediction for prediction's sake. The calling out of Cyrus well before he was born comes to mind. That seemed like it was intended to show God's power, not to the people of Isaiah's day, but to those of Cyrus's day. But other prophecies around Isaiah's time (and some from him) were to warn the people of his own day.

The end times scenario intrigues me as an open theist, because if God predicts something that is based on the minds and hearts of the people in the future, then He must make their mind and heart condition come to pass in order for them to fulfill the prophecy. OR He must already know their mind and heart condition at the time of the prophecy. Is it possible for God to know the mind and heart of someone that doesn't exist? "Mind" and "heart" are words that are used for a person's will--what they want/pursue. But if there's no person there, only a gleam in God's eye, then God is responsible for all that they do, if what they do is necessary to accomplish His goals.

And take the beast and false prophet for another example. If these things were dictated 2000 years before they come to pass, where the beast and false prophet are explicitly planned to be thrown into hell, is it possible for them to repent? Is it a vague enough prophecy that any of a number of people will be available at the time, in case one does repent?

I'm rambling a bit as I think it through.

You should read back through your post and notice how you're so unconvinced of your position here that you intuitively see the evidence against it and preemptively undermine the counter arguments.

If God promising land and a nation whose numbers are as the stars in the sky to Abraham isn't a falsifying counter example, what in the world could be? I understand that sometimes the exception proves the rule but I don't think that can possibly apply here. I mean, God started making prophecies about far distant places and peoples as early as Genesis chapter 3 and pretty much didn't stop all the way through to John's Revelation. When the entire bible is full of exceptions then maybe the exception is the rule.

And, do you really think its hard for God to figure out what the condition of a people's hearts and minds will be in the future? Has there ever been a time since Adam's fall when the condition of men's hearts wasn't wicked? Further, you know, as an Open Theist, that God is not required to fulfill a prophesy of blessing toward a people who are evil nor a prophecy of destruction against a people who repent (Jer. 18). If He were, Jesus would have returned, set up Israel's Kingdom and the Millennium would have been over with a thousand years ago.

Lastly, while exploring what God's motives might be for doing this or that is interesting and is often a fruitful thing to do, I think I would shy away from making doctrine based on a lack of understanding as to what God's motives are, especially when you can clearly see several examples of Him doing precisely the thing that you think "wouldn't make any sense".

Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

I'm butting in but I read this entire exchange. I'm just getting back here and trying to navigate as best I can. I read and considered Clete's input and find it lacking, again.

As if I care what you consider lacking.

All I did was make a comment based on the definition of the word "preterist".

In what world do you live in where argument from definition is invalid or otherwise "lacking"?

Of course, people believe what they type and if not, just trolls. I don't think God reasons with Himself or others.

I'm just about as opposite of a troll as it is possible to be.

The "colors" thing hit home with me because I thought as a child, that maybe others see different colors than I do. I thought, well I see blue because I was taught that. We see the color and we're told what the color is but do we all really SEE the same color? Maybe I see what is actually green and yet I call it blue because that's what I was taught. Interesting.

Seeing color and whether it is innate or learned happens to be a bit of a gray area actually. (To turn a phrase.)

There used to be no distinction between blue and green, for example (for some cultures there still isn't) and, people who are not taught to distinguish between two similar colors, often are unable to do so. And I'm not talking about actual color blindness where there is a physiological problem that keeps someone from being able to make such distinctions.

Not that any of that is at all relevant to Preterism but it's just an interesting anecdote between us trolls.

Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Lon just sort of instinctively stretches the meaning of words until they mean nothing at all.

If you don't believe that at least most of biblical prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jersusalem, then you're not a preterist in any meaningful sense of the word.

Says the layman that supposedly knows this stuff... You should know why you are on ignore. You have taken potshots at every member as if you are the theology guru and everybody should listen to you. You dupe some. Not me. Sorry bud, you just don't study enough. It is a waste of time. I'll leave you on ignore. I wish you'd not take potshots behind my back. You are a petty man for it stuck in your ivory tower. You're nobody's judge, Clete. Keep your arrogance to yourself.

Originally Posted by Clete

I'm just about as opposite of a troll as it is possible to be.

Not that any of that is at all relevant to Preterism but it's just an interesting anecdote between us trolls.

Clete

Er, BE a better person. You are not that bright of a fella, sorry. I at least have the degrees after my name, whether little ol' you think I deserve them or not. You just are not a nice person, Clete. It IS troll-ish. You are doing drive-by pedagogy. You've got no degrees behind your name. Who cares, Clete? Why include me? Trolling, right? Be the better guy. Look to yourself.

Maybe it's an invalid view (to you) because you disagree with it, rather than the other way around. And that should concern you, I would think--at least enough to be willing to check it out fully.

I'm not sure that Dispensationalism and Preterism are any more in conflict than Open Theism and Dispensationalism. What I mean by that is that the systems don't necessarily lock in the eschatologies. Your statement, "I just simply read it and take it for what it seems to say", is exactly what preterists say--in some cases--just like it is exactly what Dispensationalists say--in some cases.

For instance, when Preterists read

[Mat 24:32 KJV] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
[Mat 24:33 KJV] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
[Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

they say, "if it says 'this generation', then it must mean exactly what it says and those things must have happened in the generation Jesus was talking to."

When Pre-tribs read those same verses, they say "the fig tree means when Israel is revived, so 'this generation' must mean 'a different generation from this'", and they go to great lengths to try to figure out which generation it will apply to. Which seems to do the same kind of violence to the text that the preterists do claiming that the sun has already been darkened and the moon already did not give her light. (In fact, the sun was darkened within the generation Jesus spoke to--at His crucifixion. But I don't think that's the event Jesus is talking about.)

I'm not claiming to know which is right, but that there is some merit to the idea that at least some of those things happened within the generation that was alive in Jesus' day--and that part at least is read by preterists as "meaning what it says", which you claim to promote.

Correct. Preterism IS founded upon a natural reading of the text

As you say: Matthew 24:34 as literal is a 'plain reading' of the text.

Matthew 24:13, is clearly read as directly to the Apostles and disciples, they surely were persecuted to death, every last one of them. It 'was' a time of great tribulation and the whole of Matthew 24 is seen as specific to the time.
You'd see a good many MAD and Covenant agreeing on this.

I'm partial for several reasons, I believe there are good arguments regarding future prophecy that hasn't happened yet.

Says the layman that supposedly knows this stuff... You should know why you are on ignore. You have taken potshots at every member as if you are the theology guru and everybody should listen to you. You dupe some. Not me. Sorry bud, you just don't study enough. It is a waste of time. I'll leave you on ignore. I wish you'd not take potshots behind my back. You are a petty man for it stuck in your ivory tower. You're nobody's judge, Clete. Keep your arrogance to yourself.

LOL!!!

You've been on my ignore list for so long I can't even remember what prompted me to put you there. I, like you it seems, occasionally pop up a post just to see if the stupidity continues and you seem to never disappoint. The idea that I am a waste of your time is easily the most laughable thing anyone has said on this website in the last six months.

Er, BE a better person. You are not that bright of a fella, sorry. I at least have the degrees after my name, whether little ol' you think I deserve them or not. You just are not a nice person, Clete. It IS troll-ish. You are doing drive-by pedagogy. You've got no degrees behind your name. Who cares, Clete? Why include me? Trolling, right? Be the better guy. Look to yourself.

As if anyone gives a rip about your degrees!

At some point, in all you lofty education, did anyone tell you that words mean things and that you don't get to just make things up and plug them into the meaning of whatever word you choose? Obviously not because 'preterism" isn't the first word you've stretched the meaning of past all recognition.

Believing that some end time prophesy has already come to pass does not make you a preterist. It might make you an idiot (depending on the prophesy), but not a preterists. Preterism involves the belief that Israel's destruction in 70 A.D. was the culmination and fulfillment of at least some significant portion of John's Revelation among other end time prophesies (e.g. Matt. 24). If that isn't part of your doctrine then you are not any sort of preterist if the word has any meaning at all. The major distinction between partial and full preterism is that full preterists believe that ALL biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, again primarily focused on Israel's first century destruction. The vast majority of actual preterists are, in fact, "partial" or "orthodox" preterists, which is the older and more rational of the two. Not that either of them are actually rational. In any case, believing that the martyrdom of the Apostles was a fulfillment of prophecy DOES NOT make you a preterist of any stripe, color or smell! To even make such a comment betrays an ignorance of, or a flippant disregard for the word's meaning.

Of course, that won't prevent you from calling yourself one. Preterism is a four syllable word that the majority of people you mention it too would have to ask you the definition of. That will both feed your ego and allow you to turn the word into anything you want or need it to be. That won't change the facts of reality but who needs facts when you have degrees?!

Clete

Last edited by Clete; May 23rd, 2019 at 03:08 PM.

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders